By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Defense Secretary’s aggressive tactics against alleged narcoterrorists have backfired, potentially enabling them to evade prosecution. A recent bombing on a boat suspected of carrying drugs from Ecuador, directed by the Secretary, destroyed crucial evidence that could have been used to arrest the survivors. Consequently, the Ecuadorian government was forced to release one of the survivors, who had a history of drug trafficking. This outcome directly contradicts the Secretary’s tough-on-narcoterrorism stance and has raised questions about the effectiveness and legality of his methods, potentially jeopardizing his position.
Read the original article here
Pentagon Pete’s Embarrassing New Boat Strike Blunder Exposed: The whole situation really highlights the colossal mess we’re in. The crux of the matter? Bombing suspected “terrorists” without the pesky inconvenience of due process makes it a tad difficult to, you know, actually *arrest* them later. Turns out, blowing up the evidence, including any potential proof of wrongdoing, isn’t exactly conducive to a fair trial.
Take the case of Andrés Fernando Tufiño Chila, the Ecuadorian guy with a past in drug trafficking. He somehow survived a U.S. military strike on a submarine. The goal was to stop a narco-trafficking operation, but the U.S. managed to capture Chila and then send him back to Ecuador for prosecution, minus any evidence to help build a case. No seized drugs, no GPS data, no cell phones – all gone, sunk to the bottom of the sea. Consequently, the Ecuadorian government was forced to release Chila. It’s an utter embarrassment, and the disconnect between the tough-on-crime rhetoric of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the actual outcome is glaring.
Now, Hegseth has a reputation to uphold, staking his career on these boat strikes. This becomes even more alarming when considering reports of a “kill them all” order on a Venezuelan drug boat. Critics are labeling this as a potential war crime. Instead of acknowledging the implications of these actions, Hegseth doubled down, boasting about how his administration, unlike others, simply “kills” the “terrorists.” But let’s be frank, this isn’t about fighting drug smuggling. This is about oil. It is about toppling the Maduro regime, and securing funding for military interventionism abroad.
The historical parallels here are chilling. We’ve seen this play out before, the creation of a boogeyman to justify extrajudicial killings and justify foreign conflict. The claim that Venezuela is somehow “stealing our oil” is just another way of rationalizing the murder of those considered “terrorists”. It’s a means to an end. It’s about military escalation and foreign conflict. But let’s not forget the facts: a large portion of the fentanyl entering the country isn’t being brought in by migrants. And who’s the primary supplier of the precursor chemicals for fentanyl? China. The cartels operating primarily in Mexico are the ones driving the crisis.
The situation is a catastrophe. It’s nothing short of mass murder. The language used, like “Pentagon Pete” and “boat strike blunder,” is too casual, too cute, for such a serious situation. Extrajudicial killings are, at their core, simply murder. The notion of a narco-terrorist is being thrown around, with no basis in law. The entire administration’s actions are corrupt, lawless, and utterly weak. The only thing they value is lethality.
The fundamental issue is the lack of due process. When you start executing people without warning or any form of a trial, you’re the terrorist. How can anyone have confidence in national security when those in charge are engaging in extrajudicial killings? The argument, that they are targeting traffickers, particularly those involved in fentanyl distribution, simply does not hold water. Data from the government’s own agencies, shows that the majority of fentanyl is coming from Mexico and the precursor chemicals are coming from China.
The fact is, it isn’t about stopping drug smuggling. It is about regime change, for oil, and to keep the base happy with the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” approach. The question then becomes, if you can’t even hold those people accountable for their crimes, what exactly is the point? Killing everyone only prevents the possibility of getting any intelligence.
This isn’t just about the individuals involved in the killings; it’s about the entire chain of command. The lack of accountability, the disregard for the rule of law, it’s all part of a very dangerous trend. It’s a war crime, and it demands scrutiny. Selling and transporting drugs, even across our borders, does not warrant the death penalty. It’s the same playbook used to justify past conflicts. Now, it’s about control over Venezuela’s oil fields, again.